this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2025
48 points (90.0% liked)

Canada

10206 readers
455 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 days ago (41 children)

I do not remember a single part of the Liberal election platform that said "We won't cut funding in public services". The only thing I can remember being exclusively off the table were cuts to Provincial transfers.

It would be nice if the article cited those promises, but that is the Ottawa Citizen (Post media) for you.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Here's the platform.

We are also committed to capping, not cutting, public service employment. Federal workers deliver essential services to Canadians and are critical to helping Canada meet this moment of crisis. As part of our review of spending we will ensure that the size of the federal public service meets the needs of Canadians.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I think it is important to read the whole thing and not cherry pick.

The federal government has been spending too much. There are federal programs and processes that aren’t working as well as they should, and projects that need to be reviewed as we adjust to the priorities of this challenging moment. We need to be efficient and effective in all that we spend, while empowering a world-class, tech-enabled public service.

A Mark Carney-led government will launch a comprehensive review of government spending in order to increase the federal government’s productivity. This review will focus on clear targets by departments and Crown Corporations with an iterative process that deploys best approaches across the public sector. A portion of these savings will be redeployed to invest in technology and people in order to improve the quality of what the federal government does, such as reducing the time it takes to process an EI payment. Some examples of what the review could focus on:

Amalgamating service delivery so there is one point of access for Canadians in how they interact with government programs, that meets the customer service standards we have come to expect in a digital enabled economy.

Consolidating grants and contributions that serve similar purposes and are delivered to the same organizations across multiple departments, increasing impact.

Better leveraging technology to improve the automation of routine tasks and inquiries from the public and reducing the need for additional hiring. Significantly reducing reliance on external consultants, while improving the capacity of the public service to hire expertise in-house.

Better managing litigation and contingent liabilities and improving asset management practices.

Following the initial results of this review, we will institute a permanent process to link spending and outcomes across departments and continuous improvement in spending control. We will focus performance on a smaller and clearer set of things that matter to real people, such as the number of homes built and how long it takes to get an EI cheque.

As part of this review, the government will consider where AI can be leveraged to enhance productivity in government. We will look at every new dollar being spent through the lens of how AI and technology can improve service and reduce costs.

We are also committed to capping, not cutting, public service employment. Federal workers deliver essential services to Canadians and are critical to helping Canada meet this moment of crisis. As part of our review of spending we will ensure that the size of the federal public service meets the needs of Canadians.

Additionally, recognizing that it’s time to change the way Canada does procurement, we will modernize our defence procurement to ensure our Forces can buy the tools and equipment they need, in a timely way, working with trusted partners.

As a result of the main investments and savings proposed in this plan, direct program expenses are projected to grow at an average rate of less than 2% per cent per year through 2028-29. This compares to a compound annual growth of nearly 9 percent over the previous decade. This is what spending less, and investing more is all about.

From the article:

On July 7, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne sent letters to ministers asking them to find 15 per cent savings over three years in their departments. He has asked them to come up with savings of 7.5 per cent during the 2026-27 fiscal year, with an additional 2.5 per cent the year after and 5 per cent in 2028-29.

I am not seeing a promise broken here. The departments are being asked to come up with savings, and those savings are not "Lay off everyone" as is being suggested by the Unions. We currently do not know what each department will look to trim.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I'd hardly call it "cherry picking" - "We are also committed to capping, not cutting, public service employment" is a complete statement unto itself, and constitutes an election promise. There's no ambiguity, and there are no caveats provided.

If you want to make the argument that they intend to reduce departmental budgets by 15% without cutting staff...I'm willing to listen to it, but I don't think it's likely to happen. And the departments don't appear to have been instructed to do so.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 days ago (2 children)

It is cherry picking because it ignores the entire context of the place you picked it from, including the last sentence of the paragraph: "As part of our review of spending we will ensure that the size of the federal public service meets the needs of Canadians."

The way I read this is, which is why context is important, "We are committed to capping employment where it is instead of hiring or cutting employees". This does not mean the need to cut employees will never exist, simply the priority will be operational budgets outside of employees.

Yes, they are committed to not cutting public service employment as per the Platform. Which means that the 15% of savings per department should not be employees. As of now, we do not know what is or isn't being done to save that 15%, and there has been no announcement of mass layoffs.

If it is needed to cut employees because they are redundant, and it does not impact service, I do not see that as breaking an election promise.

Again, nothing has been announced. Even the article itself can cite nothing concrete and simply assumes its points.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You're free to give them the benefit of the doubt. The union is not obligated to, and I'm inclined to think their concerns are very valid.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

What inclines you to believe their concerns are valid?

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I don't think it's possible to make budget cuts that huge without cutting staff.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Payroll is a large portion of any budget, and I haven't seen any credible claims that it's possible to cut round it, or that they're even trying.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago

What percentage of the Federal budget is payroll?

What credible evidence have you seen to support that it isn't possible to "cut round it"?

What credible evidence do you have that demonstrates the Federal Government isn't trying to avoid employment cuts?

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Does it say 15% cuts in the platform? All I can see is where it says 2% increases.

Also, what else will 'save' 15% other than cutting jobs?

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I have read the article. It doesn't answer my questions.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I have read the article. It doesn’t answer my questions.

Are you sure about that?

From the article:

On July 7, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne sent letters to ministers asking them to find 15 per cent savings over three years in their departments. He has asked them to come up with savings of 7.5 per cent during the 2026-27 fiscal year, with an additional 2.5 per cent the year after and 5 per cent in 2028-29.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You should read my questions then, because this doesn't answer them

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Does it say 15% cuts in the platform? All I can see is where it says 2% increases.

The answers to your question, from reading the article and the platform before asking:

No, it doesn't say that in the platform.

Also, what else will ‘save’ 15% other than cutting jobs?

Ask the relevant Ministers who have access to the numbers, and the power to make decisions.

Neither has to do with the point that right now no one is being laid off, and departments are being asked to save money up to 15% over the next three years.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Well, the ministers aren't talking, but the unions and the PBO are.

Also the fact that departments were not asked to find only non-personnel cuts is another good indication that the warnings are correct.

Do you have anything concrete to back up the idea that all these indicators are wrong, or shall we go ahead and use Occam's razor here?

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I am using the same information everyone else is spinning to come to my conclusions. The difference is I am not speculating for personal benefit, or fear mongering in order to defend my position.

Facts of the matter are clear.

The Liberal platform stated that they are committed to capping employment instead of cutting employment and “As part of our review of spending we will ensure that the size of the federal public service meets the needs of Canadians.”, and Government departments have been asked to save 15% over 3 years with no direct orders to cut anything specific.

If you want to play with Occam's razor be sure not to cut yourself attempting to ground your speculation and assumptions in something real.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Hold on - what is the benefit to the PBO here?

And if, as you say, there's no reason to expect job cuts, then what benefit are the unions getting from "fear mongering"?

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Do you have something to add or are we done here?

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I asked you to back up your assertion, did you have anything to back it up with? If not then yes, we're done here

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I already did what you are asking, and I won't repeat myself again.

Take care.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Um no, you claimed that people were "fear mongering" because it is to their "personal benefit" to do so.

I asked what the benefit would be to the critics if they were just inventing a narrative rather than pointing to a genuine problem.

In other words, if it is reasonable to assume that Carney's government is not going to cut personnel, then what is the benefit to the union to say the opposite? Wouldn't they simply end up looking foolish and untrustworthy?

On the other hand, if it is reasonable to assume that the PBO and the federal workforce are being genuine, then yes, there would he a benefit to them to not lose their jobs.

But it's only in the latter case - where the PBO and unions are the ones telling the truth here - that there's a material benefit to them for speaking out.

Thus, your assertion contains a contradiction. I asked you to explain that contradiction. It seems you've declined to do so. Take care.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

When you can provide a single piece of anything to support your point I am all ears.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Unfortunately for you, I did.

Economists, including Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux, have said that it could be difficult to achieve Carney’s spending promises without significant cuts.

Notice how it says "could be difficult" and not "absolutely impossible".

You have now used up all good faith.

Take care.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Notice the language: "without significant cuts". The PBO did not say "without cuts". This implies that cuts are assumed, it's just a matter of degree.

Anyway you also still refuse to address the contradiction inherent to your claim about "personal benefit" to unions raising the alarm.

Not saying you're a bad faith actor whose entire purpose on these forums is to sow doubt and muddy the waters, but I am saying that your actions are virtually indistinguishable from someone who is.

Edit: huh, so another thing about the sentence you quoted is that it's not even a direct quote from the PBO. Here's a direct quote:

“To balance or to pay for these types of additional spending there would need to be severe cuts to the public service, significant cuts,” Giroux said.

https://ottawacitizen.com/public-service/carney-spending-public-service-cuts-pbo

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Currently, the main estimates don’t suggest major cuts to the public service, Giroux said.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 days ago

Yeah, that was in June, they hadn't updated things yet and the 15% cuts hadn't been announced either

Again, not saying you're a bad faith actor, but

load more comments (39 replies)